What is the point of living?

[OrthodoxBerean]

From the Objectivist stand point what is the point of living? I mean if we are here accidently why pursue something that has the chance of ending up in misery? Did Ayn Rand die happy after the death of her husband?

[RationalBiker]

I think Objectivism would say that IF you choose to live, the point of your life is for you to decide. However, the purpose of Objectivism isn't really to say what the point of your life is, it merely says that IF you choose to live, there are certain things you must do to live as a man and that failure to do those things is instead choosing death, implicitly or explicitly.

However, what fact of reality can you point to that would lead you to think we are here "accidentally"? More importantly, what do you even mean by us being here "accidentally"?

[DavidOdden]

From the Objectivist stand point what is the point of living? I mean if we are here accidently why pursue something that has the chance of ending up in misery?

Living is the ultimate end, so the question of there being a point arises only to relate other actions to that goal. You have to start from what is given and unavoidable, namely that you do exist, and that you have free will. Since your life is also not automatically guaranteed (you have to choose certain acts and avoid others, to remain alive), your life serves as the standard according to which all other choices are judged. For example, you must choose to work so that you have shelter and food, rather than singing and dancing forever, because the latter is incompatible with the decision to exist. The chain of justifications has a stopping point, which is the logically most basic question, related to the most basic fact about the universe, and that is the choice to exist. (The basic fact is existence, not, for example, consciousness, which presupposes existence).

There are contexts where suicide could be a plausible choice. Generally, a rational person can avoid the dreaded life of misery, but there are tow kinds of contexts where that you not be true. One would be if you suffered an incurable medical disorder that caused unending agony. The second would be if one lived an impossible life of slavery under a despotic dictatorship, where one really were not free to pursue any goals that constituted "living". Baring those extremities, people make their own misery.

[Zip]

From the Objectivist stand point what is the point of living?

To live well!

I mean if we are here accidently why pursue something that has the chance of ending up in misery?

Because it has a probability of ending up so well!

Did Ayn Rand die happy after the death of her husband?

It doesn't matter.

[nutbar]

I recall a scene from The Fountainhead in which Roark directed Dominique's and Wynand's attention to the rocks, trees, and land around them on Wynand's estate. He said something to the effect of "The point of living is to take these branches, these rocks, and this earth - and make what you will of it." Can anyone find this exact quote? I don't happen to have my copy of the book with me (I don't actually carry it around in my back pocket, though perhaps that wouldn't be such a terrible idea ).

[KendallJ]

From the Objectivist stand point what is the point of living?

I echo Zip on this: to live well.

I mean if we are here accidently why pursue something that has the chance of ending up in misery? Did Ayn Rand die happy after the death of her husband?

Hmm, how did "how you end up" suddenly become the standard to judge the quality of one's life. Here I disagree with Zip, although I know what he means. Since death is usually the end of a proces of decline or decay (metaphorically) or of the unexpected, one could say that most people die in a state that is worse off than when they were at their "peak".

Does the fact that Ayn Rand was admittedly less happy after her husband died somehow negate 50 years of happiness with him?

[Grames]

Everyone is born with an enthusiasm and passion for their own life. It takes a long process of philosophical and psychological corruption to undermine the vitality that is everyone's birthright. The question "What is the point of living?" is invalid because of its false premise that life needs to be justified.

[nutbar]

Everyone is born with an enthusiasm and passion for their own life. It takes a long process of philosophical and psychological corruption to undermine the vitality that is everyone's birthright. The question "What is the point of living?" is invalid because of its false premise that life needs to be justified.

I'm not sure I fully understand you here. I think the question is valid enough to warrant the responses already given in the above posts - but your claim intrigues me. Can you please explain further why life does not need to be justified?

[Tenure]

I recall a scene from The Fountainhead in which Roark directed Dominique's and Wynand's attention to the rocks, trees, and land around them on Wynand's estate. He said something to the effect of "The point of living is to take these branches, these rocks, and this earth - and make what you will of it." Can anyone find this exact quote? I don't happen to have my copy of the book with me (I don't actually carry it around in my back pocket, though perhaps that wouldn't be such a terrible idea ).

I don't remember that scene. I do remember a quote where Roark is talking to Wynand and he picks up a branch, and to the best of my memory it goes:

"See, I can bend this into a bow or use it as spear. That is the meaning of life."

"Your strength?"

"My work".

[Grames]

I'm not sure I fully understand you here. I think the question is valid enough to warrant the responses already given in the above posts - but your claim intrigues me. Can you please explain further why life does not need to be justified?

The responses above addressed what the purpose of life should be. I understood the question "what is the point of living?" as "life is pointless, why bother?" The question as phrased begs to be answered with some kind of external motivation which one never noticed before but which when grasped provides one the strength to grimly continue dutifully on toward the bitter end of your natural life despite one's losses and sufferings. This whole context is false.

Objectivism rejects the idea of duty (duty entry in the Lexicon). Furthermore, since "to justify" means to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable it presumes the possibility of being wrong. But no one chooses to be born. In the absence of choice there can be no right or wrong, only an acceptance of what is. Thus, one's own life is a metaphysical given and cannot be considered contingent upon having a 'point' as presumed by the original question (see The Metaphysical vs. The Man-Made in the Lexicon). That one's own life is a metaphysical given is the metaphysical basis of freedom from duty and guilt.

The continuation of your life is not a given, and your life should have a purpose but those are different issues.

The other falsehood that the original question smuggles into your mind is that is life is all about suffering, that pain and suffering are important, that you should decide to continue living or not on the basis of avoiding suffering instead of enjoying the values you have or may attain. Objectivism has the Benevolent Universe Premise which states that "... reality is “benevolent” in the sense that if you do adapt to it—i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality."

[KendallJ]

Everyone is born with an enthusiasm and passion for their own life. It takes a long process of philosophical and psychological corruption to undermine the vitality that is everyone's birthright. The question "What is the point of living?" is invalid because of its false premise that life needs to be justified.

I think objectivism also rejects the idea of innate knowledge. Your first sentence might essentially boil down to, "everyone intuitively gets the point of living." This isn't much different than a religionist who says we have an innate sense of what's good.

[nutbar]

The responses above addressed what the purpose of life should be. I understood the question "what is the point of living?" as "life is pointless, why bother?" The question as phrased begs to be answered with some kind of external motivation which one never noticed before but which when grasped provides one the strength to grimly continue dutifully on toward the bitter end of your natural life despite one's losses and sufferings. This whole context is false.

Objectivism rejects the idea of duty (duty entry in the Lexicon). Furthermore, since "to justify" means to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable it presumes the possibility of being wrong. But no one chooses to be born. In the absence of choice there can be no right or wrong, only an acceptance of what is. Thus, one's own life is a metaphysical given and cannot be considered contingent upon having a 'point' as presumed by the original question (see The Metaphysical vs. The Man-Made in the Lexicon). That one's own life is a metaphysical given is the metaphysical basis of freedom from duty and guilt.

The continuation of your life is not a given, and your life should have a purpose but those are different issues.

The other falsehood that the original question smuggles into your mind is that is life is all about suffering, that pain and suffering are important, that you should decide to continue living or not on the basis of avoiding suffering instead of enjoying the values you have or may attain. Objectivism has the Benevolent Universe Premise which states that "... reality is “benevolent” in the sense that if you do adapt to it—i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality."

Now I see what you're saying. Thanks for that.

[Grames]

I think objectivism also rejects the idea of innate knowledge. Your first sentence might essentially boil down to, "everyone intuitively gets the point of living." This isn't much different than a religionist who says we have an innate sense of what's good.

Its not an innate sense of whats good, its learned from the world before language. Only after language is it possible to learn in an adult manner, and to err in the adult manner by holding contradictions.

[KendallJ]

Its not an innate sense of whats good, its learned from the world before language. Only after language is it possible to learn in an adult manner, and to err in the adult manner by holding contradictions.

That I'd buy, but then "Everyone" and "born with" would be incorrect.

[LiberTodd]

I guess the easiest and most effective way to answer that question is with another question:

What is the point of not living?

[Zip]

I guess the easiest and most effective way to answer that question is with another question:

What is the point of not living?

[B. Royce]

From the Objectivist stand point what is the point of living? I mean if we are here accidently why pursue something that has the chance of ending up in misery? Did Ayn Rand die happy after the death of her husband?

A certain kind of life (of your own choosing) can be a point----but only if you are alive. What would be the point of being dead? To whom? No one is there.

[Randy Morantes]

There are contexts where suicide could be a plausible choice. Generally, a rational person can avoid the dreaded life of misery, but there are tow kinds of contexts where that you not be true. One would be if you suffered an incurable medical disorder that caused unending agony. The second would be if one lived an impossible life of slavery under a despotic dictatorship, where one really were not free to pursue any goals that constituted "living".

I'm having some difficulty here. In your "incurable medical disorder" example, it would seem that the reason suicide is permissible is because one feels an extreme amount of pain that will never go away. In your "despotic dictatorship" example, it would seem that the reason suicide is permissible is because one is not free to pursue the "goals that constitute living". Two different approaches seem to be evident:

Approach 1 (incurable medical disorder) - One (pursues pleasure/avoids pain), and sets goals in order to (achieve this pleasure/avoid this pain). Suicide is permissible only when the following preconditions are met:

1) The pain of one's life greatly outweighs the pleasure.

2) This ratio of pain to pleasure (will never/is unlikely to) change.

Approach 2 (despotic dictatorship) - One pursues "goals that constitute living", pleasure follows as the result/reward of achieving these goals. Suicide is permissible only when the following preconditions are met:

1) One is unable to pursue the goals necessary to live (flourish).

2) This inability to pursue one's goals (will never/is unlikely to) change.

My understanding of Objectivism is limited, but I believe it uses the 2nd approach. So, my understanding of the first example is that the individual suffering from the incurable medical condition would be justified in committing suicide not because he suffers from unending agony/pain, but because this unending pain physically/mentally prevents him from pursuing the "goals that constitute living". Would this be correct?

Thanks!

[Capitalism Forever]

My understanding of Objectivism is limited, but I believe it uses the 2nd approach. So, my understanding of the first example is that the individual suffering from the incurable medical condition would be justified in committing suicide not because he suffers from unending agony/pain, but because this unending pain physically/mentally prevents him from pursuing the "goals that constitute living". Would this be correct?

Yes, I would say it is correct. I have argued about this with Objectivists before, but in my opinion and in my interpretation of Objectivism, the proper goal in life is not the maximization of pleasure or the minimization of pain, but the achievment of existential values that further one's life. In other words, it's not "It feels good, therefore I do it," but "It makes me flourish as a human being, therefore I do it."

As a side note:

the reason suicide is permissible

"Permissible" is not really the word to use when describing ethical principles in Objectivism: Objectivist ethics is not about somebody permitting you to do some things and forbidding others, but about acting rationally to further your life. So you might say something like "...the reason suicide is morally acceptable..." or "...the reason suicide is a rational choice..." instead.